Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2018 1:16 AM
223 online now:
Dr Adequate, edge, Faith (3 members, 220 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,555 Year: 7,378/29,783 Month: 1,602/1,708 Week: 5/488 Day: 5/77 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 46 of 68 (832783)
05-10-2018 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
05-10-2018 10:04 AM


Re: A Flood Of Controversy
Topic.

The topic is how the Flood created the specific examples in the OP and the second list of five.

That is the topic.

Is that too hard a concept?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 05-10-2018 10:04 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 05-10-2018 10:14 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10772
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 47 of 68 (832785)
05-10-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
05-10-2018 10:09 AM


Re: A Flood Of Controversy
But I see no way that a Flood could do that.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 05-10-2018 10:09 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-10-2018 10:20 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 48 of 68 (832787)
05-10-2018 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
05-10-2018 10:14 AM


Re: A Flood Of Controversy
Then I doubt you could add much to this topic.

The point is to make it clear that NO ONE has a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would allow a flood to create the evidence that exists in reality.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 05-10-2018 10:14 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5676
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 49 of 68 (832810)
05-11-2018 3:16 AM


……and anyway Phat, calling it a myth ends the discussion. Which is fine.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 50 of 68 (833110)
05-17-2018 7:39 AM


and not one flood support has been able to offer an explanation
And not one flood supporter has been able to offer an explanation for even one of the examples presented and there are literally millions more such examples.

The Biblical Floods never happened and this thread will stand as a memorial for their demise.

The Biblical Floods never happened.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 51 of 68 (833323)
05-19-2018 6:59 PM


Bueller? Anyone seen Bueller?
Here is a chance for those who think a Biblical Flood actually happened to explain how the flood created the evidence that exists in reality.

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 52 of 68 (833648)
05-24-2018 3:30 PM


anyone seen Bueller?
Here is a chance for those who think a Biblical Flood actually happened to explain how the flood created the evidence that exists in reality.

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 53 of 68 (833707)
05-25-2018 3:18 PM


Faith says the explanation is coming soon.
In Message 454 of the thread Religion or Science - How do they compare? Faith asserts:

quote:
Fear not, I think all this assumption and speculation will soon be tumbling down as there will be proof of the Flood.

I am excitedly awaiting the explanation beginning with the five examples in the OP.

Unless of course Faith is just funnin us again.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 54 of 68 (833747)
05-26-2018 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
04-29-2018 8:15 AM


Jar writes:

Maybe if we move really slowly and stick to only one piece of evidence at a time Faith or some other believer in a Biblical Flood can finally explain just how the flood do that.
I'd like to stick to only ten specific items and work through the list only moving to the next item after a workable model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can be seen in action today has been presented to explain how the flood did that specific example.

I think because there is no way to repeat the effects of a world-scale catastrophe, in some cases it would seem highly unlikely and unrealistic and a red-herring to say, "explain this specific thing for a flood". That may be a bit of a suggested blanket-type, sweeping generalisation. Generally a flood model may explain the general evidence but it might not be able to explain specific anomalies. All theories have things they either can't explain or presently haven't thought up a good answer for. To then argue because there isn't an answer it didn't happen, would be a type of argument from ignorance.

I think the same can be done for long ages, I could cherry-pick the anomalies that don't fit and say, "let's put the focus on these anomolies".

I wrote more about this at EFF, I gave a more in depth answer I shall quote;

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6796...

mike the wiz writes:

One issue with the flood is that we can't repeat it's effects, which means opportunists can capitalise on this by basically finding strange features of geology and then appealing to our lack of knowledge by saying, "how could a flood have caused this."

If people are honest with themselves, uniformity is the "present is the key to the past" type thinking, but if strange features were created by a flood and we never see how a flood could cause them, then we are basically being asked to explain things for which it may be either impossible to know or very difficult to know. When we also consider the mess of a flood with it's many convolutions, fully knowing what did happen and how each and every specific feature was caused, is like trying to unscramble an egg.

So a key difference is that with uniformity we can see present day processes and imagine how they might have caused X feature, but if a flood did cause that feature, it may well be almost impossible to know the unique circumstances that caused it, because we don't have any key to the past in the present, with a flood, it was a unique and unprecedented, and unrepeatable event.

Conclusion; I think rhetoricist, seasoned trolls and the laymen spin doctors of evolution, take advantage of this by appealing to the *blank* we all have in our imagination, when confronted with a peculiar geologic feature, for often the convolutions of the flood don't leave us with any easy way to imagine how it could have happened but that very reason is why it may well be a good reason to believe a flood did do it, because such a world-scale catastrophe would almost be 100% bound to throw up some very strange, unprecedented and convoluted geological activities never witnessed in the present.

This was somewhat displayed in the Mt St Helens canyon, 1/40th size of Grand canyon when we see that strange movements of flows created unconformity in a section of rock only separated by perhaps hours of time.

https://dl0.creation...iffface-lge.jpg

Here we can see the strata and the canyon cut out in days, looking very similar to grand canyon in some ways, but note it took days to form;

https://dl0.creation...-Canyon-lge.jpg

Many scientists would never have predicted such effects. (And that's my point) You can read all about it here;

https://creation.com...mount-st-helens

As I explained here, the key difference as with the Mt ST Helens example, is that the canyon that was caused on days, created effects caused by catastrophe which scientists would never have predicted could happen such as the laminated strata, and a canyon itself.

The point I am making is, with long ages and uniformity, the arguments are based on witnessed processes in the present, but with catastrophes which cause strange features, if that catastrophe has never been witnessed by anyone, then we can't predict all of it's effects, we can only wait until a similar catastrophe such as the canyon created at Mt St Helens, occurs, then we can say, "wow look at these effects, who would have thought it."

CONCLUSION: Obviously to say before that canyon was made at St Helens, "these features can't be created quickly", would have been a type of argued ignorance, because really they just didn't know how a catastrophe could cause those features.

So while I agree there are evidences which don't seem to fit all that well with a flood, I think basically it is to argue from ignorance to say it can't happen because we don't know how it could have. Human beings don't know a lot of things, but things that occur are not predicated on humans understanding those events, logically speaking.

P.s. So bickering over these selective selections, would seem to me to be to take the bait a bit.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 04-29-2018 8:15 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 7:35 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 62 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-26-2018 10:44 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 05-26-2018 8:10 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 64 by edge, posted 05-26-2018 10:44 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 55 of 68 (833748)
05-26-2018 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
05-26-2018 7:27 AM


And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
And so as expected you cannot explain how a flood could create any of the examples in the OP.

That is the topic Mike. If the flood cannot explain the evidence it should be thrown in the dustbin where it belongs.

This is the chance for those people who believe there was some Biblical flood to stop dancing and actually explain the evidence.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 7:27 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 8:05 AM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 56 of 68 (833750)
05-26-2018 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
05-26-2018 7:35 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
Jar writes:

And so as expected you cannot explain how a flood could create any of the examples in the OP.
That is the topic Mike. If the flood cannot explain the evidence it should be thrown in the dustbin where it belongs.

This is the chance for those people who believe there was some Biblical flood to stop dancing and actually explain the evidence.

Well, I didn't say I can't explain it as such if I really had to. In the past obviously I have tried to give explanations where I have mustered the knowledge to debate it in a provisional capacity (none-dogmatically since I don't have a science background).

There are explanations from YEC scientists such as Snelling, pertaining to the chalk, coccolith blooms, etc...but because I personally don't necessarily accept that YEC model, sort of means it might be inappropriate for me to argue those specific arguments. It might make more sense for a YEC that very dogmatically believes in a particular model, to explain their model, since I myself am open to various flood models.

Jar writes:

If the flood cannot explain the evidence it should be thrown in the dustbin where it belongs

If that's your personal view you have the right to it, I won't try and stop you. But personally I think I have reasonably shown that it's premature ignorance to conclude that because humans can't explain something, therefore there can be no answer. It seems just as likely to me, intellectually speaking, that they themselves might just not know the answer because like I explained, there aren't any world-scale catastrophes occurring, so we can't predict what strange things may unfold if something that big happened.

Jar writes:

This is the chance for those people who believe there was some Biblical flood to stop dancing and actually explain the evidence.

I can't explain all the evidence. Informed people know what they can and can't do. I also don't qualify as having enough knowledge of geology to give a good answer and because I tend to favour going for the epistemic-humility approach I am not comfortable making guesses based on my own ignorance.

But the operative term you used here is, "belief". If I believe a flood occurred, and I am not arguing it occurred as such, but just saying that personally I believe it did like the bible says, then I don't really think the onus is on me to argue it and evidence it if my position is that mostly I just take it on faith and belief. Especially so if I am not sure in what context it occurred. I don't think we really can know, it's the pitfall of historical hypotheses. I don't know for sure if the flood happened as a literal world-scale event, I tend to believe it did but I don't care enough to take up the official YEC arguments here in this thread. It's the same with the speed of light, I tend to accept it seems it has to be old, billions of years but because I am not committed to that conclusion would you have me take up the YEC argument that all light is 6000 years? it's not, "either YEC or evolutionist", life isn't that simple.

What are you going to do, ban my belief? Why can't I believe it without pretending to be a geologist? Because that's when a layman can look very silly, and that does make creationist laymen look silly, when they get baited into debating science they don't really understand.

If you don't value the information I provided, that's your decision. Mostly I am a writer, not a debater. I present information for whoever is willing to be honest enough with themselves to value it.

(My own personal position on eons versus YEC youth, is that it's all too circumstantial. I have heard the arguments back and forth, it seems to me you can make a compelling case for each. That makes me neutral when it comes to argumentation, or almost neutral, but obviously I believe the history of the world is better explained by creation, a special creation, not an evolution from designer-slime.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 7:35 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 8:17 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 57 of 68 (833751)
05-26-2018 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by mike the wiz
05-26-2018 8:05 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
Mike writes:

If that's your personal view you have the right to it, I won't try and stop you. But personally I think I have reasonably shown that it's premature ignorance to conclude that because humans can't explain something, therefore there can be no answer.

And your position is classic Creationist song and dance Mike, just a carny con game.

The fact is that the conventional theories do explain how each of the examples were created. This thread (there is a topic here Mike) is to allow folk that think there was some Biblical Flood to explain how each of the ten examples (and many many many many more if needed) were created by some flood.

Nothing else is relevant in this thread.

It really is that simple.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 8:05 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 8:44 AM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 58 of 68 (833752)
05-26-2018 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
05-26-2018 8:17 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
Jar writes:

And your position is classic Creationist song and dance Mike, just a carny con game.

The fact is that the conventional theories do explain how each of the examples were created. This thread (there is a topic here Mike) is to allow folk that think there was some Biblical Flood to explain how each of the ten examples (and many many many many more if needed) were created by some flood.

My position is the creationist position, yes, even without the irrelevant QB-epithets, "song and dance".

But what I am putting to you is this; I don't think it would be very tactically astute to only concentrate on these anomalies which are to various degrees, problematic for a flood model for a YEC flood.

So I believe your argument in so many words is this; "if a flood can't answer for these problems it should be put in the trash". Is that fair enough as explaining your position?

However I shown an example where, MT ST helens erupted and created a canyon in days with many similar evidences to grand canyon, such as the similar topogtaphy (we don't go into details here)

Suffice to say, BEFORE that catastrophe, if you had asked me, "show a canyon can create these features or quick canyon creation should be put in the trash", we would know that obviously your argument would be proven wrong later on when the volcano erupted and we got those effects.

That type of argument is wrong, BECAUSE we were unaware of how a catastrophe might cause them.

So I believe my comment is VERY RELEVANT to the topic, if you are saying that if I can't answer these problems then a flood is refuted. I would put it to you that in fact logically it is inconsequential because events in the universe are not predicated on human understanding. It is logically possible a flood did occur and create that evidence even if none of us can answer for how it did. Such a thing is common, or are you saying the effects of gravity only can occur if humans understand gravity, and gravity was not in operation until Netwon?

EXAMPLE;

CMI writes:

The volcanic eruption, including the landslide, pushed rock down the mountainside and across the landscape. As the large rocks slid, they gouged grooves and scratches in the underlying rock (figure 8). It has been customary for geologists to interpret grooves on rocks as being formed by a glacier, as the ice and rocks creep across the landscape. However, this interpretation would be wrong for the grooves in rocks at Mount St Helens; they were gouged by fast-moving rocks propelled by geological catastrophe, not a slow-moving glacier. This means that many geological areas previously interpreted as glacial environments need to be re-assessed, because they may not be glacial at all

So can you at least see my point or are you just going to shut down?

The point is obvious, as I argued earlier, uniformity would mean that we might be able to explain such an effect as caused by a glacier however nobody would have predicted such an effect caused this way, nor would they have predicted the laminated strata laid down in hours.

CONCLUSION: I see these "silver-bullets" not as silver-bullets to a world flood. I think it's just as easy to conclude if there are no solid answers, this conclusion; "Well, just like with those unpredictable effects at Mt St Helens, because we can't experience a world scale flood all of it's effects, it could just be that it's not possible to come up with the correct reasons why they occurred."

I think that conclusion should be relevant to any objective, intellectual person because at the very least IGNORANCE isn't going to be the best thing to base an argument on.

Now sure, personally I don't know how or why the chalk would be able to be created in a flood scenario, but the correct reaction should be this; "well of course you don't know, who would?"

Jar writes:

This thread (there is a topic here Mike) is to allow folk that think there was some Biblical Flood to explain how each of the ten examples (and many many many many more if needed) were created by some flood.

Then to my mind the thread is based on a faulty premise, that being that we have to answer for those ten examples. Now I am not against people trying to come up with an explanation but I believe largely because we can't test a flood scenario and we can't test your conclusion, "ergo it is trash" then the topic itself is not so consequential, logically speaking.

It would be just as unfair to open a thread with all of the anomalies for eons of age and say, "you can't discuss any evidence that fits with eons of age".

"You cannot be serious". - John McEnroe.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 8:17 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 9:06 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 65 by edge, posted 05-26-2018 11:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30361
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 59 of 68 (833753)
05-26-2018 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
05-26-2018 8:44 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
Topic Mike. I understand that Creationists have nothing but song and dance but this topic involves only those items listed.

How could a flood create the examples shown in the topic?

It really is that simply Mike!


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 8:44 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 9:28 AM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4617
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 68 (833755)
05-26-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
05-26-2018 9:06 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
Topic Mike. I understand that Creationists have nothing but song and dance but this topic involves only those items listed.
How could a flood create the examples shown in the topic?

It really is that simply Mike!

Well the highlighted part is again, question-begging-epithets, it replaces the need for argumentation (of which there wasn't any in your post).

You didn't prove what I said was, "song and dance", you only stated it as a bare-assertion fallacy. It's spin to call it that. I call it a cogent explanation of why simple thinkers think such matters are in fact simpler than they really are because they aren't very thoughtful.

It's also rhetorical spin, because you're basically saying, "this is what mike said, means, it means creationist song and dance" but I think my points were actually very good ones based on a true example of a scientific event at Mt St Helens where a canyon was created.

Basically I can prove that an event can happen even though humans can't answer all of the specifics for why. Had we not been here to scientifically witness that volcano erupt, we might still be arguing that the rock chaffing found there, and laminated strata, was caused slowly over eons because catastrophists, "can't say why" they were created quickly.

I think it's important for readers to acknowledge (to be fair to me) that your responses don't address anything I argued, and you basically assert the same epithets ad nauseam. Your posts are basically CONTENTLESS. You just want to shout, "song and dance, mike, do what I say, throw a dice and get 13."

My response is: I have already explained why your red-herring won't be accepted. I won't accept the bait and play it on your terms because it would be stupid. So you can keep requesting, "how did a flood create" them and I will keep showing it is logically possible to not know even though the event occurred.

No matter how reasonable I am willing to be, it seems to me you're only willing to fire off the same spin-filled assertions, and repeat your contentless burnt offerings, in your familiar style.

Good day Sir, and I can only hope if there are any reasonable/neutral readers, they will see your behaviour very clearly. I suggest you would only repeat the same spin no matter what facts I shown and no matter how much my argument made sense. What you don't realise is that my argument wasn't even contentious, you could apply the same standard to uniformity, for there may be processes that can happen slowly and create a feature, which we aren't aware of.

So it's not like everything I said was solely about the flood, it can be generally applied, as reasonable, to say that humans can't know all the specific answers even though an event still might have happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 9:06 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 05-26-2018 9:33 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:03 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 68 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 12:38 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018